Lawsuit: In Session DocTheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42

[Kaiserin_]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


DocTheory (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complaints against the Defendant as follows:

A severe and grave miscarriage of justice has occurred, and it must be set right. In no humane society would a person be sentenced and forced to serve a prison sentence requiring over two real-life months of consistent working off for a crime that, by law, warrants no jail time whatsoever. There was no trial, no due process, just a unilateral declaration. Resisting arrest is the only crime that the Plaintiff has been charged with. This crime is a summary offence with a fine of $100 – perhaps the most inconsequential ‘slap on the wrist’ that can possibly be given as punishment to a citizen. Instead of being handed this minute fine and being allowed to go on with the rest of his life, DocTheory was forced to serve over 140 hours of jail time, down from his original sentence of over 166 hours. One hundred and forty hours in Revcatraz, with nothing to do but hard labour in the mines and solemn contemplation in a cell. There is no excuse nor explanation that could even come close to justifying this ridiculous sentencing. Not only this, but the Commonwealth was duly notified through official channels, and public statements were made about this miscarriage of justice. What did the government do to correct its atrocious mistakes? Absolutely nothing. This behaviour, which so carelessly disregards the fundamental principles that our very civilisation is built upon, has left the Plaintiff with no other course of action. That is why today the Plaintiff comes to the Court, battered and broken, in search of redress.

I. PARTIES

1. DocTheory (Plaintiff)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. DocTheory was sentenced to jail for ‘Logging out while handcuffed’. This sentence dates back to the 22nd of December, 2024. (P-003)
2. DocTheory was given a sentence of 6 days, 22 hours, and 50 minutes in jail. (P-001)
3. DocTheory had no jail records prior to ‘Logging out while handcuffed’
4. Following his sentencing, DocTheory left the server, and rejoined on the 23rd of February, 2025. (P-006)
5. The Department of Homeland Security was contacted regarding DocTheory’s unjust imprisonment, and no action was taken to address the situation. (P-004)
6. DocTheory was released from prison early, presumably by staff, with no explanation whatsoever on the 25th of March. (P-005)
7. In total, DocTheory served 5 days, 18 minutes, and 24 seconds of in-game jail time, having skipped 1 day, 2 hours, 31 minutes, and 39 seconds from mining and the early release. (P-003)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. According to § 4.(6) of the Miscellaneous Offenses Act, Resisting Arrest (‘Logging out while handcuffed’) is a summary offence with a fine of $100 per offence and no associated jail time.
2. The Plaintiff had his 14th Constitutional Right violated, which reads ‘Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice’. DocTheory was forced to serve over 120 hours of jail time for a crime that should not have landed him in jail in the first place. These actions by the Commonwealth completely and utterly violated DocTheory’s rights to life, liberty, and security, and any notion of fundamental justice was thoroughly discarded.
3. In the case of GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 11, the plaintiff received a similar, though shorter, unjust sentence, and the court ruled in his favour in granting nearly all of the requested damages.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $420,900 of compensation at a rate of $50 per minute for a total of 8,418 minutes, as outlined in the Standardized Criminal Code Act § 4.2.(c).
2. $300,000 in punitive damages for the gross miscarriage of justice of sentencing a citizen to over 140 hours of jail time for a crime that only warrants a $100 fine, as well as failure to properly redress the issue when it was discovered. In [2025] FCR 11, the plaintiff was awarded $150,000 in punitive damages for an unjust sentence that was under half the time of DocTheory’s. It is evident that significantly more punitive action is necessary in order to prevent this outrageous and morally reprehensible behaviour from occurring again, and to properly penalise the Commonwealth for its repeated unconscionable actions in regards to the proper carrying out of justice that violated the Plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional rights.
3. $300,000 for the immense loss of enjoyment in Redmont that comes from being unable to play the game outside of jail for over 5 days of in-game playtime, and over two months of real time. This absolutely egregious amount of time spent in jail stripped DocTheory of the ability to live a normal life in Redmont, participate in any and all events and elections, or otherwise engage with the in-game community in any meaningful way for two entire months – all over a crime that should have been punished with a measly $100 fine.
4. $5,115 in compensatory damages for the opportunity cost incurred from the incorrect sentencing. DocTheory has attended to 29 patients during the period of time since his release on the 25th of March to the 11th of April (P-007). Each patient cured earns DocTheory $100. At a rate of 1.705 patients per day, and over the course of serving his sentence between the 23rd of February and his release (for a total of 30 days), DocTheory is likely to have made $5,115 from curing patients.
5. $307,804 in legal fees, equal to 30% of the case value, as outlined in § 9 of the Legal Damages Act.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Witness List:
DocTheory

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 10th day of May, 2025.

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@juniperfig is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Doctheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[AmityBlamity]

The Commonwealth is present, Your Honor.

 

[ko531]

You have 72 hours to provide your answer to complaint

 

[AmityBlamity]

You have 72 hours to provide your answer to complaint

Respectfully requesting a 24 hour extension, Your Honor. Dealing with a sick kid.

 

[ko531]

Respectfully requesting a 24 hour extension, Your Honor. Dealing with a sick kid.

Granted

 

[AmityBlamity]

Answer to Complaint

Answer to Complaint​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DocTheory
Plaintiff

v.

Comm
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRMS that DocTheory was sentenced to jail for ‘Logging out while handcuffed’, and that this sentence dates back to the 22nd of December, 2024.
2. AFFIRMS that the plaintiff received a sentence of 6 days, 22 hours, and 50 minutes in jail, but DENIES this was the fault of the Commonwealth.
3. DOES NOT DISPUTE that DocTheory had no jail records prior to ‘Logging out while handcuffed’.
4. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that following his sentencing, DocTheory left the server, and rejoined on the 23rd of February, 2025.
5. AFFIRMS that the Department of Homeland Security was contacted regarding DocTheory’s unjust imprisonment, but DENIES that no action was taken to address the situation.
6. AFFIRMS that DocTheory was released from prison early on the 25th of March, but NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that it was presumably by staff, with no explanation whatsoever.
7. AFFIRMS that in total, DocTheory served 5 days, 18 minutes, and 24 seconds of in-game jail time, having skipped 1 day, 2 hours, 31 minutes, and 39 seconds from mining and early release.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff is falsely accusing the Commonwealth of purposefully locking up DocTheory for nearly a week, and throwing away the key. The truth of the situation is that this was a plugin error (D-001). There was absolutely zero input from the DHS in this matter, it was an automatic process. The Department of Homeland Security cannot be held liable for a glitch which it had no control over. In fact, plaintiff agrees with this assessment. D-002 through D-005 exhibits that the plaintiff acknowledged that this wasn’t an action of the Commonwealth, but was instead a glitch.

2.This is a vastly different situation to GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 11. GnomeWhisperer’s unjust sentence was the result of an individual abusing their power, while DocTheory’s sentence was the result of a glitch. As shown in the precedent set by Commonwealth of Redmont v. l3afyy [2023] FCR 44, the fault of a plugin should result in any police liability being waived.

3. There is not sufficient proof that DocTheory exhausted all avenues to be released. To the contrary, DocTheory was very happy to remain in jail. As per D-006 through D-010, plaintiff was very happy to wait out the glitched sentence, because it meant he’d “be very rich when [he] get out”. This case is nothing more than a shakedown, designed to rob taxpayers.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 19th day of May 2025

 

[AmityBlamity]

Objection

OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor, plaintiff’s counsel cites P-003 numerous times to support their facts. However, they have not provided P-003.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your Honor, in Fact 5 plaintiff’s counsel cite P-004 as proof the DHS was contacted, but P-004 appears to be a photo of the plaintiff’s arrest record. There’s a similar issue with Fact 6, where P-005 is purported to show DocTheory’s early release, but instead appears to be an unrelated message from Interception.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

The injury plaintiff is claiming, an excessive jail sentence, was the result of a glitched plugin. As per Court Rules and Procedures §2.1.1, there must be a clear second party that inflicted this injury. In this situation, there is none. The Commonwealth is not responsible for the time the plaintiff spent in jail. It was a glitch, an undisputed fact of the case.

Per Court Rules and Procedures §5.5, there is insufficient evidence to support this civil charge. Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence showcasing the Commonwealth was responsible for this sentence. Furthermore as per the evidence we provided, plaintiff is, and was, fully aware that his jail sentence was a bot error.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Objection

OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor, plaintiff’s counsel cites P-003 numerous times to support their facts. However, they have not provided P-003.

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your Honor, in Fact 5 plaintiff’s counsel cite P-004 as proof the DHS was contacted, but P-004 appears to be a photo of the plaintiff’s arrest record. There’s a similar issue with Fact 6, where P-005 is purported to show DocTheory’s early release, but instead appears to be an unrelated message from Interception.

Apologies for the incorrectly labeled evidence - I seem to have skipped the number 3. The complaint has been amended to reflect the proper numbering. It should be clear that a minor error in numbering does not call for objection to the evidence itself.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

The injury plaintiff is claiming, an excessive jail sentence, was the result of a glitched plugin. As per Court Rules and Procedures §2.1.1, there must be a clear second party that inflicted this injury. In this situation, there is none. The Commonwealth is not responsible for the time the plaintiff spent in jail. It was a glitch, an undisputed fact of the case.

Per Court Rules and Procedures §5.5, there is insufficient evidence to support this civil charge. Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence showcasing the Commonwealth was responsible for this sentence. Furthermore as per the evidence we provided, plaintiff is, and was, fully aware that his jail sentence was a bot error.

Plaintiff requests a response to the motion.

 

[ko531]

Apologies for the incorrectly labeled evidence - I seem to have skipped the number 3. The complaint has been amended to reflect the proper numbering. It should be clear that a minor error in numbering does not call for objection to the evidence itself.


Plaintiff requests a response to the motion.

You may respond to the motion to dismiss

 

[Kaiserin_]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

The injury plaintiff is claiming, an excessive jail sentence, was the result of a glitched plugin. As per Court Rules and Procedures §2.1.1, there must be a clear second party that inflicted this injury. In this situation, there is none. The Commonwealth is not responsible for the time the plaintiff spent in jail. It was a glitch, an undisputed fact of the case.

Per Court Rules and Procedures §5.5, there is insufficient evidence to support this civil charge. Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence showcasing the Commonwealth was responsible for this sentence. Furthermore as per the evidence we provided, plaintiff is, and was, fully aware that his jail sentence was a bot error.

Response

Your honour, I would like to provide three defences in opposition to this motion to dismiss.

I. The defence has not shown that the overblown jail time was the result of a plugin error. All the defence has shown is that the proper jail time was 15 minutes, and that it was applied automatically.

II. Even if the jail time was the result of a plugin error, the legislation is clear:

If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed, they shall be compensated $50 per minute spent in jail for offenses found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offences.

Punishment was imposed on DocTheory. He was not found guilty of a crime that warranted that punishment. The defence has offered no proof that he was guilty of such a crime. DocTheory shall be compensated for his misattributed jail time, regardless of whether it was the Commonwealth's "fault" or not, and DocTheory cannot sue Staff to earn this compensation.

III. Even if the initial sentencing was not strictly the fault of the Commonwealth, the government has still failed to uphold its duty of care to its citizens by outright refusing to make any attempt to address this concern. It is not Staff's high-security jail that DocTheory was imprisoned in, but the Commonwealth's. And yet, even after being duly and promptly notified of the error by the plaintiff, and even after strong and continued public outcry from the plaintiff (as so helpfully evidenced by the defence), the government spectacularly failed to act. This represents a clear breach of the government's constitutional duties.

For these reasons, we contend that the Commonwealth is indeed a clear second party that has inflicted injury upon the plaintiff, and we respectfully urge the Court to allow this case to continue to be heard in the name of justice.

 

[ko531]

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your Honor, in Fact 5 plaintiff’s counsel cite P-004 as proof the DHS was contacted, but P-004 appears to be a photo of the plaintiff’s arrest record. There’s a similar issue with Fact 6, where P-005 is purported to show DocTheory’s early release, but instead appears to be an unrelated message from Interception.

As both objections pertain to the mislabeling of evidence which the plaintiff has fixed, both objections are Overruled

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

The injury plaintiff is claiming, an excessive jail sentence, was the result of a glitched plugin. As per Court Rules and Procedures §2.1.1, there must be a clear second party that inflicted this injury. In this situation, there is none. The Commonwealth is not responsible for the time the plaintiff spent in jail. It was a glitch, an undisputed fact of the case.

Per Court Rules and Procedures §5.5, there is insufficient evidence to support this civil charge. Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence showcasing the Commonwealth was responsible for this sentence. Furthermore as per the evidence we provided, plaintiff is, and was, fully aware that his jail sentence was a bot error.

Motion to dismiss is denied

The clear second party would be the commonwealth in this case, either damages caused in the jailing itself of the negligence in facilitating his release. Even if this was caused by a glitch, it does not remove the duty of the commonwealth to release him if informed.

 

[ko531]

We will now be entering Discovery, discovery will last 72 hours starting now.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Request for Discovery:

Could the plaintiff please provide the transcript of the DHS ticket they opened on the 3rd of March?

 

[Kaiserin_]

Request for Discovery:

Could the plaintiff please provide the transcript of the DHS ticket they opened on the 3rd of March?

After contacting my client's former counsel, Angryhamdog, we were able to obtain the transcript. Neither I nor DocTheory had access to it because we were not added to the ticket, despite request for such. Plaintiff enters the following screenshots into evidence, pursuant to the Commonwealth's request:

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

 

[AmityBlamity]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.10 (Statue of Limitations), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The SCR ruling in SCR 3 [2025] Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont states that "The statue of limitations for civil cases is four months. see 4(7)(a), Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act)."
2. Rule 5.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states that "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed if the timing of the filing of the case exceeded the statute of limitiations."
3. Per Fact 1 of the Complaint, the incorrect jailing happened on the 22nd of December, 2024.
4. The statute of limitations for the incorrect jailing was up until the 22nd of April 2025, four months after the 22nd of December 2024. This case was filed on the 10th of May 2025.

The case should therefore be dismissed per Rule 5.10

 

[Kaiserin_]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.10 (Statue of Limitations), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The SCR ruling in SCR 3 [2025] Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont states that "The statue of limitations for civil cases is four months. see 4(7)(a), Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act)."
2. Rule 5.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states that "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed if the timing of the filing of the case exceeded the statute of limitiations."
3. Per Fact 1 of the Complaint, the incorrect jailing happened on the 22nd of December, 2024.
4. The statute of limitations for the incorrect jailing was up until the 22nd of April 2025, four months after the 22nd of December 2024. This case was filed on the 10th of May 2025.

The case should therefore be dismissed per Rule 5.10

The plaintiff would like to respond.

 

[ko531]

The plaintiff would like to respond.

You may, you have 24 hours.

 

[gribble19]

The Defendant hereby respectfully requests an extension to Discovery in line with Rule 4.4 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

 

[Kaiserin_]

The Defendant hereby respectfully requests an extension to Discovery in line with Rule 4.4 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Plaintiff consents to an extension of discovery.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.10 (Statue of Limitations), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The SCR ruling in SCR 3 [2025] Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont states that "The statue of limitations for civil cases is four months. see 4(7)(a), Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act)."
2. Rule 5.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states that "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed if the timing of the filing of the case exceeded the statute of limitiations."
3. Per Fact 1 of the Complaint, the incorrect jailing happened on the 22nd of December, 2024.
4. The statute of limitations for the incorrect jailing was up until the 22nd of April 2025, four months after the 22nd of December 2024. This case was filed on the 10th of May 2025.

The case should therefore be dismissed per Rule 5.10

Response

Your honour, it is the continued negligence and miscarriage of justice by the Commonwealth that is at issue in this case. The offence we allege was an ongoing one, not a single event, and it was a continuous offence against my client every day that he was not released from prison. DocTheory was only released on 25 March, 2025, less than two months before the filing of this case. The defence is grasping at straws.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.10 (Statue of Limitations), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The SCR ruling in SCR 3 [2025] Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont states that "The statue of limitations for civil cases is four months. see 4(7)(a), Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act)."
2. Rule 5.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states that "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed if the timing of the filing of the case exceeded the statute of limitiations."
3. Per Fact 1 of the Complaint, the incorrect jailing happened on the 22nd of December, 2024.
4. The statute of limitations for the incorrect jailing was up until the 22nd of April 2025, four months after the 22nd of December 2024. This case was filed on the 10th of May 2025.

The case should therefore be dismissed per Rule 5.10

Motion to dismiss denied

This case is looking at more then just the alleged illegal sentence that DocTheory recieve but also the commonwealth's duty to correct its wrong. Statue of Limitation begins counting when a violation/offense has completed especially when that violation/offense is continuous like in this case. The alleged negligence by the commowealth is not a behavior that can be clearly defined to a single act. The legal idea being refered to here is called the "continuing violations" doctrine which allows acts outside of the normal statue of limitations to still be litigated if they were continuous and not completely outside of those same statue of limitations exactly like this case is.

 

[ko531]

The Defendant hereby respectfully requests an extension to Discovery in line with Rule 4.4 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Discovery extention granted

Discovery is extended by 5 days from the original end date.

 

[gribble19]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY

The Defense hereby requests a screenshot of the message "90 hours left" from DocTheory as shown in P-005 that shows the date and time on which this message was sent.

 

[Kaiserin_]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY

The Defense hereby requests a screenshot of the message "90 hours left" from DocTheory as shown in P-005 that shows the date and time on which this message was sent.

It is hereby provided.

Spoiler: P-011

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, the Defense requests a further 24 hour extension of Discovery so that they can take actions based on the evidence that has now been provided by the Plaintiff.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, the Defense requests a further 24 hour extension of Discovery so that they can take actions based on the evidence that has now been provided by the Plaintiff.

granted

 

[Kaiserin_]

The Plaintiff would like to tender the following additional witnesses:
2. Angryhamdog (DHS Secretary)
3. Staff

 

[Kaiserin_]

After a request, we will be removing Angryhamdog from the witness list. Plaintiff's current witnesses are DocTheory and Staff.

 

[gribble19]

The Defense enters the following pieces of evidence.

Spoiler: D-011

Spoiler: D-012

 

[gribble19]

The Defense would like to amend their Answer to Complaint as follows due to the information provided in D-011 and D-012
(edits in yellow)

7. DENIES that in total, DocTheory served 5 days, 18 minutes, and 24 seconds of in-game jail time, having skipped 1 day, 2 hours, 31 minutes, and 39 seconds from mining and early release.

 

[ko531]

The Defense would like to amend their Answer to Complaint as follows due to the information provided in D-011 and D-012
(edits in yellow)

7. DENIES that in total, DocTheory served 5 days, 18 minutes, and 24 seconds of in-game jail time, having skipped 1 day, 2 hours, 31 minutes, and 39 seconds from mining and early release.

Granted

 

[ko531]

As discovery is now over, the plaintiff will have 72 hours to provide their opening statement

 

[AmityBlamity]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Plaintiff has failed to provide their opening statement in the allotted time.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Apologies your honour, I have been running a presidential campaign and, to be transparent, have been searching for new counsel for my client because of the major conflict of interest I have in this case. I appear to have been a few minutes late to requesting an extension, and I woke up not very long ago.

If the court sees it fit to find me in contempt for the missed deadline, I very much understand, but I humbly request an extension of 72 or 48 hours to provide opening statements so as to ensure my client has a fair trial, and provide more time to locate more suitable counsel.

 

[ko531]

Apologies your honour, I have been running a presidential campaign and, to be transparent, have been searching for new counsel for my client because of the major conflict of interest I have in this case. I appear to have been a few minutes late to requesting an extension, and I woke up not very long ago.

If the court sees it fit to find me in contempt for the missed deadline, I very much understand, but I humbly request an extension of 72 or 48 hours to provide opening statements so as to ensure my client has a fair trial, and provide more time to locate more suitable counsel.

I will be holding you in contempt. Not for your inability to provide your opening statement but your lack of notification to this court prior requesting an extension for these circumstances which has in turn wasted this courts time.

I will be granting a 48 hours extension in order to find a new counsel.

 

[Kaiserin_]

I will be holding you in contempt. Not for your inability to provide your opening statement but your lack of notification to this court prior requesting an extension for these circumstances which has in turn wasted this courts time.

I will be granting a 48 hours extension in order to find a new counsel.

Your honour,

I believe we have located suitable new counsel, and we will need time to transfer everything over to them and confirm with all necessary parties. I am hereby requesting a short recess until this process is finished.

 

[ko531]

Your honour,

I believe we have located suitable new counsel, and we will need time to transfer everything over to them and confirm with all necessary parties. I am hereby requesting a short recess until this process is finished.

I am giving you 48 hours for you to transfer everything and for the new counsel to provide their opening statements

 

[Patototongo1]

May it please the Court,

The Plaintiff, DocTheory, will now be represented by Mezimoři Law due to the aforementioned conflict of interest encountered by prior counsel at Dragon Law. I, Patototongo1, will be serving as primary counsel on behalf of Mezimoři Law.

The new counsel intends to fully comply with the timeline previously set by the Court and will submit the opening statement by the established deadline.

Respectfully,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"

Spoiler: retaining counsel evidence

 

[Patototongo1]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This case concerns the unlawful deprivation of liberty and the failure of the Commonwealth to remedy an acknowledged injustice. The Plaintiff, DocTheory, was sentenced on December 22, 2024, to nearly seven days of in-game incarceration—a total of over 8,400 minutes—for the offense of logging out while handcuffed, a violation classified under § 4.(6) of the Miscellaneous Offenses Act as Resisting Arrest, which is a summary offense carrying only a $100 fine and absolutely no jail time.

No trial was held. No judicial discretion was exercised. Due process was not upheld; this is a fact. If nothing else, the court will find this. A clear violation of the Plaintiff's rights under § IV.(32)(9) of the Constitution. Additionally it is paramount to note that the punishment was automatically imposed, no judicial action was attempted by the government subsequent to the sentencing, and the punishment far exceeded what the law prescribes.

After receiving this sentence, the Plaintiff promptly reported the issue to the Department of Homeland Security and clearly continued to raise concern both through direct channels and publicly. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth took no corrective action during the Plaintiff’s incarceration. The defense has provided no evidence of corrective action being taken by the government. The Plaintiff ultimately served 5 days and 18 minutes of in-game jail time—or approximately 140 hours—while the defense denies this, they have failed to provide concrete evidence or an alternative figure. In contrast, the Plaintiff has submitted clear documentation of the time served. As well, the Department of Homeland Security has not provided an explanation to the Plaintiff for the release on March 25, 2025. The government has failed to justify itself on this date, and why the plaintiff was not released sooner.

The defense has claimed the sentence was the result of a plugin error, yet no evidence has been produced to confirm the nature of that error, its cause, or whether appropriate safeguards were in place to prevent such an outcome. Moreover, the government has failed to provide any technical justification or explanation supporting the existence or mechanics of this alleged plugin failure, and as such, has not cleared itself of responsibility.
Even if a technical error did occur, the law remains clear: under the Standardized Criminal Code Act § 4.2.(c). (emphasis mine),

If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed, they shall be compensated $50 per minute spent in jail for offenses found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offences.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to liberty, as enshrined in § IV.(32)(14) of the Constitution, was violated when the government failed to intervene or rectify the improper sentence—despite being made aware of it (the awareness being a fact the defense has not denied). In addition to statutory damages, the Plaintiff also suffered measurable financial and participatory harm, having been unable to engage in professional, political, or civic life during the entirety of his imprisonment.

This Court will see that:

• The Plaintiff was sentenced for a summary offense that does not warrant incarceration;
• The Plaintiff was not found guilty of any offense justifying his sentence;
• The Commonwealth was made aware of the situation and no action was taken by any party until well after the harm had occurred;
• And that under established law and precedent, including GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 11, the Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

This is not a matter of policy disagreement or technicality. It is a straightforward application of statutory law and constitutional protections. The Plaintiff asks the Court to enforce those protections, as written, and grant the appropriate remedies for the harm sustained.

Nothing further at this time,
Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 10 June 2025.

 

[ko531]

The defense has 72 hours to provide their opening statement.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, plaintiff's counsel, ladies, gentlemen, enbies, and others among us, we thank you for the opportunity to present our defense. It is our hope that in the following paragraphs we will showcase that plaintiff is attempting to pick a fight with a government that did everything in its power to free him, that was not at all responsible for the situation he found himself in, and that not only is this government not responsible for any suffering caused, but that plaintiff has vastly exaggerated their actual suffering.

Glitch​

Regarding the plaintiff's comments about “no evidence has been produced to confirm the nature of that error…”, I would advise the plaintiff actually look over the evidence provided in this courtroom.

Firstly, we have DocTheory’s arrest record (P-003), that shows that he was assigned a sentence of 20 minutes for logging out while in handcuffs. The arrest record shows no other crimes. Had an individual been responsible for this, as with GnomeWhisperer’s case, this information would clearly be visible, NOTABLY the time that DocTheory would have been sentenced to (in this case, 6 days, 22 hours, and 50 minutes).

Next, we have D-001, which outlines how the plugin is supposed to work by Tech. In addition to that, in evidence provided by the defense (D-002, D-003, and D-005), the plaintiff himself is aware that a GLITCH was responsible for this sentence. Is plaintiff’s counsel accusing their own client of being dishonest? Of being incompetent? If not, why are they refuting this fact? The defense, defense’s counsel, and the plaintiff are in agreement here, and solely plaintiff’s counsel stands in opposition to a certain fact of this case.

Plaintiff’s counsel claims we did not provide any technical justifications, but this is also false. D-004 sees the plaintiff theorizing on the reason behind the glitch, citing a game crash while he was being transferred while cuffed. P-009 also has interception affirming that “jail had some bugs in the past week as well”.

Regarding “whether appropriate safeguards were in place to prevent such an outcome”, as we shall discuss later, it is not the Commonwealth’s responsibility to act as QA for a plugin implemented by staff.

Time Served​

DocTheory did not serve the full sentence. This claim is incompetence from the plaintiff’s counsel at best, and an insidious lie at worst. As shown in P-003, he skipped 1 day, 2 hours, 31 minutes, and 39 seconds from mining (D-011 confirms that skipped time refers to mining, and NOT the time left if Staff frees an individual from jail), and public logs show he barely played at all during his sentence. Based on the work of the prosecution team (thank you gribble), analysing plaintiff logging in and logging out (shown in D-012), between the 15th and 25th of March, plaintiff played for around 26 minutes.

In P-011, per DocTheory, he had “90 hours left” on his sentence on the 15th of March. 3 days and 18 hours. Deducting the time played between the 15th and 25th of 26 minutes, that leaves us with 3 days, 17 hours, and 34 minutes. Adding on the skipped time of 1 day, 2 hours, 31 minutes, and 39 seconds, and we are left with a total of 4 days, 20 hours, 5 minutes, and 39 seconds.

That is 4 days, 20 hours, 5 minutes, and 39 seconds that plaintiff did NOT serve. To put it another way, the absolute maximum time that DocTheory could have served is 50.74 hours (rounded up, for the sake of fairness). And that’s a generous estimate. In evidence provided by the plaintiff, P-001, we can see that DocTheory escaped from the prison on at least one occasion. Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to provide concrete evidence depicting the exact amount of time DocTheory spent within prison, almost certainly because it does not help their case.

Applying the balance of probabilities here, it is very clear that DocTheory served nothing close to the sentence that plaintiff’s counsel claims, and that their claims are little more than attempts to rob the Commonwealth’s taxpayers. This case should be thrown out on this omission alone.

Plaintiff’s Attempts to Rectify the Situation & Staff Response Time​

Plaintiff’s counsel claims that plaintiff exhausted every method possible to them in order to free themselves from their predicament. All the plaintiff has provided is one ticket (P-008 to P-010), opened on the 3rd of March, depicting angryhamdog discussing the situation with interception.

As interception pointed out in the provided ticket, the Commonwealth does NOT have the power to remove people from jail. This, sadly, is one of the limitations of our virtual world. Incidents where individuals are jailed for excessive periods of time are, thankfully, exceedingly rare.

However, after interception made it clear that the Commonwealth themselves could not remove DocTheory, but that he’d check with staff, angryhamdog expressed satisfaction with the handling of the situation. A situation that was handled. DocTheory was freed from his prison sentence. Baseless accusations from plaintiff’s counsel that the Commonwealth was apparently letting DocTheory rot are just that: baseless.

It is by the good graces of the Staff team that we not only have a server, but a great server. The staff team works tirelessly to provide a fun, welcoming environment to all. They work tirelessly to respond to a myriad of issues players may encounter. As this court will no doubt agree, they have a lot on their plate, and endlessly needling them to resolve a situation is both disrespectful to the work they do, and also rude. With this in mind, it needs to be made clear that the Commonwealth is not responsible for how long it takes for Staff to resolve an issue.

Staff Precedent​

I’d like to take a moment to discuss a legal concept that, while present in our courts, I don’t believe has ever been openly discussed. That being ‘Staff Precedent’, or the influence that Staff wields upon our courts. To bring up a very recent example, there has long been discussion about deported players and their rights within the court. Do they have the right to representation? Do they have the right to a fair trial?

Recently, the Staff team put this matter to bed, clarifying a difference between Temporarily Deported players (those expected to return, and who would keep their rights) and Permanently Deported players (those not expected to return, with their rights removed).

Staff Precedent supersedes all other, including rulings from the Supreme Court. So, why am I bringing this up? As shown in Commonwealth of Redmont v. l3afyy [2023] FCR 44, the Staff team (in this case, Tech), made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that police conduct was waived due to a plugin at fault. Applying the concept of Staff Precedent here, the Commonwealth cannot be found at fault for something we had no control over, but regardless saw fit to make right.

Far-reaching Repercussions​

If this court finds in favor of the plaintiff, there is risk of a grave precedent that will forever expose the Commonwealth for actions entirely outside their control. To put it another way, the Commonwealth would be liable for the mistakes of the Staff team. DocTheory’s jail sentence was the result of a glitch. The plaintiff himself has admitted to this.

The Commonwealth does not code the plugins, does not QA the plugins, does not implement the plugins, does not fix the plugins. Why then should the Commonwealth be held responsible for the failings of the plugins?

Nothing further at this time. Thank you all.

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@DocsTheory @staff are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Doctheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[DocsTheory]

present, your honour

 

[Patototongo1]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor,

The Defense failed to submit their opening statement within the timeframe set by the Court and did not request an extension or exemption prior to the deadline.

While the delay may appear minor, this is not a trivial oversight. It is a direct violation of a clear judicial order and, as such, constitutes contempt of court. Compliance with procedural timelines is essential to ensuring the orderly and fair administration of justice. The Defense’s failure to meet its obligation, without notice or justification, disrespects the authority of the Court and imposes unnecessary delays on these proceedings.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court recognize this as contempt and consider whether the Defense’s failure to adhere to procedural requirements should affect the weight or admissibility of their submission.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 13 June 2025.

 

[Patototongo1]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves to amend the witness list, appending the following individual:

Intercepticon — Former Head of the Department of Homeland Security and the government official who handled the Plaintiff’s ticket regarding the sentencing in question.

We acknowledge that this request is unorthodox due to its timing. However, Plaintiff’s counsel has only recently assumed responsibility for the case and, until now, has not had the opportunity to fully review and amend the witness list.

Intercepticon’s testimony is materially relevant to the core issues in dispute, including the government’s awareness of and response to the Plaintiff’s improper incarceration. Their direct involvement in the matter makes their inclusion essential to the fair and complete presentation of evidence.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion in the interest of justice.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 13 June 2025.

 

[Patototongo1]

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Court Rules and Procedure, the Plaintiff formally requests that the trial in the above-captioned matter be held in-game.

As permitted by the rules, either party may request an in-game trial, provided both sides consent. The Plaintiff is willing to coordinate with the Defense to determine a mutually agreeable time for such a proceeding.

An in-game trial would allow for a more efficient and expedited proceeding, minimizing delays and facilitating direct communication between the parties and the Court. Accordingly, we respectfully request approval of this format, subject to the Defense’s agreement.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Court Rules and Procedure, the Plaintiff formally requests that the trial in the above-captioned matter be held in-game.

As permitted by the rules, either party may request an in-game trial, provided both sides consent. The Plaintiff is willing to coordinate with the Defense to determine a mutually agreeable time for such a proceeding.

An in-game trial would allow for a more efficient and expedited proceeding, minimizing delays and facilitating direct communication between the parties and the Court. Accordingly, we respectfully request approval of this format, subject to the Defense’s agreement.

Does the defense concur?

 

[Staff Team]

Writ of Summons

@DocsTheory @staff are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Doctheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

Present. Please ping @End on all responses required.

 

[ko531]

As the witnesses are now present, the plaintiff may now question them. Questions should be asked in the next 24 hours and witnesses should respond within 24 hours of questions being asked.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Does the defense concur?

We do not, Your Honor.

 

[Patototongo1]

Your Honor,

Counsel for the Plaintiff respectfully requests a 24 hour extension to the current questioning period. Due to unforeseen personal circumstances, I will be away from my computer and unable to participate for the entorety of the day.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

Counsel for the Plaintiff respectfully requests a 24 hour extension to the current questioning period. Due to unforeseen personal circumstances, I will be away from my computer and unable to participate for the entorety of the day.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
Counsel for the Plaintiff

Granted.

 

[Patototongo1]

@End

Good morning, I’m Patototongo1, counsel for the Plaintiff. I’ll be asking you a few questions regarding the events and procedures relevant to this case.

First of all, Can you confirm your role within the Staff Team at the time of the events in question?

 

[End]

server co-owner

 

[Patototongo1]

@End

For the sake of efficiency, I’ll be presenting all of my questions in a single block below:

1. Are you familiar with the procedures used to jail and unjail players on the server?
2. Does the Staff Team utilize any plugins or automated tools to administer jail sentences?
3. To your knowledge, are these tools capable of misapplying or extending sentences beyond statutory limits?
4. Are logs or records maintained of jail sentences and the time served by players?
5. Does the Staff Team play any role in monitoring the length of time a player remains jailed?
6. In a typical case, if a player is jailed erroneously or beyond the legal sentence, what is the standard procedure for review or correction?
7. Was DocTheory’s sentence or jail duration ever brought to your or the staff team's attention prior to March 25th? If so, by who?
8. Who authorized or processed DocTheory’s release from jail on March 25th?
9. Was any internal discussion or investigation held regarding the length of DocTheory’s sentence? If so, could you share with the court what those discussions looked like?
10. To your knowledge, was the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) involved in initiating DocTheory’s jail sentence?
11. Is Exhibit D-011 accurate in stating that only the DHS Secretary can request that a player be unjailed?
12. Can you confirm whether a formal unjail request was ever received from the DHS Secretary in relation to DocTheory? If so, could you share this request with the court?
13. If such a request was never made by the DHS Secretary, on what authority or instruction was DocTheory released?
14. Would the Staff Team have released DocTheory earlier if a request from the DHS Secretary had been submitted sooner?
15. In your view, does the failure to receive such a request explain the extended duration of DocTheory’s jail time?
    
    
    
    We thank you for your time and cooperation, and respectfully reserve the right to pose follow-up questions at the discretion of the Court.​

 

[Patototongo1]

@DocsTheory

Good evening, I’m Patototongo1, you already know me, I am your council. I’ll be asking you a few questions regarding the events relevant to your case in the hopes of bringing light and justice to the situation.

For the sake of efficiency, I’ll be presenting all of my questions in a single block below:

1. Can you confirm the date you were first sentenced and the charge that led to your incarceration?
2. Prior to this incident, did you have any criminal record or jail time on your account?
3. Could you give us a description of the events that took place leading to your incasaration?
4. At any point, were you made aware by the government through any official channels on of why the jail sentence imposed was so long, compared to what the law stipulates for your offense?
5. Could you describe to the court your experience during your time in Revcatraz?
6. Were there any opportunities for meaningful in-game interaction or community participation while incarcerated?
7. How did your time in jail affect your ability to enjoy Democracy Craft or participate in its community events and economy?
8. Did you or anyone on your behalf reach out to government officials or departments to challenge or inquire about your sentencing?
9. What responses, if any, did you receive from the Commonwealth or its officials?
10. Did you ever receive any formal communication from the Department of Homeland Security regarding an effort to investigate or resolve your case?
11. Can you walk us through how you calculated the total amount of time you served in jail?
12. Have you seen any evidence presented by the Defense that clearly disproves your claim about how much time you served?
13. Were you ever informed why your sentence was reduced or when you would be released?
14. Based on your role in-game, can you explain how your incarceration impacted your earnings and opportunities?
15. How much income did you estimate losing during your sentence, and how did you calculate it?
16. Do you believe your punishment aligns with the Standardized Criminal Code for the offense you were charged with?
17. Do you feel your constitutional right to liberty and due process was upheld during this process?
18. Do you believe the government fulfilled its duty of care in addressing your situation?
19. If this had happened to another player, what would you expect the government’s response to have been?
    
    We thank you for your time and cooperation, and respectfully reserve the right to pose follow-up questions at the discretion of the Court.

 

[End]

@End

For the sake of efficiency, I’ll be presenting all of my questions in a single block below:

1. Are you familiar with the procedures used to jail and unjail players on the server?
2. Does the Staff Team utilize any plugins or automated tools to administer jail sentences?
3. To your knowledge, are these tools capable of misapplying or extending sentences beyond statutory limits?
4. Are logs or records maintained of jail sentences and the time served by players?
5. Does the Staff Team play any role in monitoring the length of time a player remains jailed?
6. In a typical case, if a player is jailed erroneously or beyond the legal sentence, what is the standard procedure for review or correction?
7. Was DocTheory’s sentence or jail duration ever brought to your or the staff team's attention prior to March 25th? If so, by who?
8. Who authorized or processed DocTheory’s release from jail on March 25th?
9. Was any internal discussion or investigation held regarding the length of DocTheory’s sentence? If so, could you share with the court what those discussions looked like?
10. To your knowledge, was the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) involved in initiating DocTheory’s jail sentence?
11. Is Exhibit D-011 accurate in stating that only the DHS Secretary can request that a player be unjailed?
12. Can you confirm whether a formal unjail request was ever received from the DHS Secretary in relation to DocTheory? If so, could you share this request with the court?
13. If such a request was never made by the DHS Secretary, on what authority or instruction was DocTheory released?
14. Would the Staff Team have released DocTheory earlier if a request from the DHS Secretary had been submitted sooner?
15. In your view, does the failure to receive such a request explain the extended duration of DocTheory’s jail time?
    
    
    
    We thank you for your time and cooperation, and respectfully reserve the right to pose follow-up questions at the discretion of the Court.​

I believe you are limited to 5 questions per witness. Staff are here to advise, can we please cut out the known facts

 

[AmityBlamity]

@End

For the sake of efficiency, I’ll be presenting all of my questions in a single block below:

1. Are you familiar with the procedures used to jail and unjail players on the server?
2. Does the Staff Team utilize any plugins or automated tools to administer jail sentences?
3. To your knowledge, are these tools capable of misapplying or extending sentences beyond statutory limits?
4. Are logs or records maintained of jail sentences and the time served by players?
5. Does the Staff Team play any role in monitoring the length of time a player remains jailed?
6. In a typical case, if a player is jailed erroneously or beyond the legal sentence, what is the standard procedure for review or correction?
7. Was DocTheory’s sentence or jail duration ever brought to your or the staff team's attention prior to March 25th? If so, by who?
8. Who authorized or processed DocTheory’s release from jail on March 25th?
9. Was any internal discussion or investigation held regarding the length of DocTheory’s sentence? If so, could you share with the court what those discussions looked like?
10. To your knowledge, was the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) involved in initiating DocTheory’s jail sentence?
11. Is Exhibit D-011 accurate in stating that only the DHS Secretary can request that a player be unjailed?
12. Can you confirm whether a formal unjail request was ever received from the DHS Secretary in relation to DocTheory? If so, could you share this request with the court?
13. If such a request was never made by the DHS Secretary, on what authority or instruction was DocTheory released?
14. Would the Staff Team have released DocTheory earlier if a request from the DHS Secretary had been submitted sooner?
15. In your view, does the failure to receive such a request explain the extended duration of DocTheory’s jail time?
    
    
    
    We thank you for your time and cooperation, and respectfully reserve the right to pose follow-up questions at the discretion of the Court.​

@DocsTheory

Good evening, I’m Patototongo1, you already know me, I am your council. I’ll be asking you a few questions regarding the events relevant to your case in the hopes of bringing light and justice to the situation.

For the sake of efficiency, I’ll be presenting all of my questions in a single block below:

1. Can you confirm the date you were first sentenced and the charge that led to your incarceration?
2. Prior to this incident, did you have any criminal record or jail time on your account?
3. Could you give us a description of the events that took place leading to your incasaration?
4. At any point, were you made aware by the government through any official channels on of why the jail sentence imposed was so long, compared to what the law stipulates for your offense?
5. Could you describe to the court your experience during your time in Revcatraz?
6. Were there any opportunities for meaningful in-game interaction or community participation while incarcerated?
7. How did your time in jail affect your ability to enjoy Democracy Craft or participate in its community events and economy?
8. Did you or anyone on your behalf reach out to government officials or departments to challenge or inquire about your sentencing?
9. What responses, if any, did you receive from the Commonwealth or its officials?
10. Did you ever receive any formal communication from the Department of Homeland Security regarding an effort to investigate or resolve your case?
11. Can you walk us through how you calculated the total amount of time you served in jail?
12. Have you seen any evidence presented by the Defense that clearly disproves your claim about how much time you served?
13. Were you ever informed why your sentence was reduced or when you would be released?
14. Based on your role in-game, can you explain how your incarceration impacted your earnings and opportunities?
15. How much income did you estimate losing during your sentence, and how did you calculate it?
16. Do you believe your punishment aligns with the Standardized Criminal Code for the offense you were charged with?
17. Do you feel your constitutional right to liberty and due process was upheld during this process?
18. Do you believe the government fulfilled its duty of care in addressing your situation?
19. If this had happened to another player, what would you expect the government’s response to have been?
    
    We thank you for your time and cooperation, and respectfully reserve the right to pose follow-up questions at the discretion of the Court.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

As End has pointed out, the plaintiff is limited to 5 questions per witness.

 

[Patototongo1]

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your honor,

Apologies to the Court and opposing counsel. Coming from a real-world legal background, Plaintiff’s counsel did not anticipate that questioning would be limited. We appreciate the clarification and have amended the question list accordingly to align with procedural expectations. The revised set of questions is as follows:

@End

1. Was DocTheory’s sentence or jail duration ever brought to your or the staff team's attention prior to March 25th? If so, by who?
2. Was any internal discussion or investigation held regarding the length of DocTheory’s sentence? If so, could you share with the court what those discussions looked like?
3. Is Exhibit D-011 accurate in stating that only the DHS Secretary can request that a player be unjailed?
4. Can you confirm whether a formal unjail request was ever received from the DHS Secretary in relation to DocTheory? If so, could you share this request with the court?
5. Would the Staff Team have released DocTheory earlier if a request from the DHS Secretary had been submitted sooner?

@DocsTheory

1. At any point, were you made aware by the government through any official channels on of why the jail sentence imposed was so long, compared to what the law stipulates for your offense?
2. Could you describe to the court your experience during your time in Revcatraz?
3. Did you or anyone on your behalf reach out to government officials or departments to challenge or inquire about your sentencing? If so, what responses did you receive from the Commonwealth or its officials?
4. Did you ever receive any formal communication from the Department of Homeland Security regarding an effort to investigate or resolve your case?
5. Can you walk us through how you calculated the total amount of time you served in jail?

 

[AmityBlamity]

1. Was DocTheory’s sentence or jail duration ever brought to your or the staff team's attention prior to March 25th? If so, by who?
2. Was any internal discussion or investigation held regarding the length of DocTheory’s sentence? If so, could you share with the court what those discussions looked like?
3. Can you confirm whether a formal unjail request was ever received from the DHS Secretary in relation to DocTheory? If so, could you share this request with the court?

1. At any point, were you made aware by the government through any official channels on of why the jail sentence imposed was so long, compared to what the law stipulates for your offense?
2. Did you or anyone on your behalf reach out to government officials or departments to challenge or inquire about your sentencing? If so, what responses did you receive from the Commonwealth or its officials?

Objection

Compound Questions

All the above questions contain multiple inquiries.

1. Would the Staff Team have released DocTheory earlier if a request from the DHS Secretary had been submitted sooner?

Objection

Call for Conclusion, Speculation

Plaintiff is seeking an opinion to strengthen their version of events.

1. At any point, were you made aware by the government through any official channels on of why the jail sentence imposed was so long, compared to what the law stipulates for your offense?

Objection

Incompetent

As far as I'm aware, DocTheory is not a practicing lawyer, and thus is not qualified to comment on "what the law stipulates".

1. Could you describe to the court your experience during your time in Revcatraz?

Objection

Ambiguous

Question here is unclear.

 

[Patototongo1]

Objection​

Compound Questions

All the above questions contain multiple inquiries.

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully submits the following response to the Defense’s objection regarding the formulation of the submitted questions:

First, the suggestion that the questions contain “multiple inquiries” misunderstands their structure and intent. These are not separate or disjointed questions bundled into one; rather, they are clarifications nested within a single, cohesive line of questioning. These clarifying clauses are not intended to introduce multiple questions, but rather to frame the inquiry with sufficient precision to avoid ambiguity. Inquiries such as whether DocTheory’s sentence was brought to the staff team’s attention, and if so, by whom, or whether a formal unjail request was received and whether it can be shared with the court, are unified lines of questioning. The secondary phrases serve to specify the scope of the answer being sought, not to complicate the question, but to ensure clarity, accuracy, and relevance. This structure supports a fair and thorough evidentiary process, not confusion.

Second, the specific question cited by the Defense “At any point, were you made aware by the government through any official channels of why the jail sentence imposed was so long, compared to what the law stipulates for your offense?” is plainly a singular question. It seeks to understand whether the Plaintiff received an official explanation for the length of the sentence, nothing more. The reference to “official channels” and the comparison to the lawful sentencing guidelines are not distinct inquiries but aspects of the same factual issue. This should not even be in dispute; it is a precise and necessary question.

Third, it is important to recognize that the questions have been formulated with careful consideration of the format and constraints of a forum-based digital trial. In a traditional courtroom, questions can be clarified or followed up in real time. Here, where asynchronous communication governs the exchange, as well as a limit to questioning imposed by procedural regulations, slightly more expansive phrasing is necessary to ensure clarity and efficiency. This approach helps to avoid misinterpretation and repeated back-and-forth that would otherwise slow the proceedings and burden all parties involved.

Finally, the objection appears to be based more on form than substance. The Defense’s invocation of “compound questions” does not align with the actual legal definition. A compound question is defined in the Court Guide Objections as: "A question that includes multiple inquiries, which can confuse the witness:" (emphasis mine). That is not the case here. Each question is clearly stated, logically structured, and directed at a single, comprehensible point. A reasonable and attentive witness would not be confused by them. The Defense’s objection, in this context, seems more like an attempt to delay or undermine legitimate inquiry rather than a substantive challenge to the Plaintiff’s conduct.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 16 June 2025.

 

[Patototongo1]

Objection​

Call for Conclusion, Speculation

Plaintiff is seeking an opinion to strengthen their version of events.

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully disagrees with the Defense’s objection. The question posed does not improperly seek speculation or a legal conclusion, but rather invites the witness to speak to standard administrative procedure or established practice within the Staff Team. The purpose is not to elicit a subjective opinion, but to clarify how the system typically operates in relation to unjail requests, specifically whether earlier intervention from the DHS Secretary would have impacted the Staff Team’s course of action.

That said, in the interest of procedural clarity and out of respect for the Court’s standards, we are willing to amend the question slightly to better reflect the factual nature of the inquiry:

“Based on the Staff Team’s standard procedures, would an earlier unjail request from the DHS Secretary typically result in an earlier release for a jailed individual?”

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 16 June 2025.

 

[Patototongo1]

Objection​

Incompetent

As far as I'm aware, DocTheory is not a practicing lawyer, and thus is not qualified to comment on "what the law stipulates".

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully submits that this objection lacks merit. The question in dispute does not call for a legal opinion, but rather asks whether the witness received an explanation from the government regarding the clear discrepancy between their sentence and the offense charged. The relevant legal provision is a matter of public record and has been acknowledged by both parties in these proceedings. One does not need to be a practicing lawyer to be aware of this established and undisputed fact.

Moreover, the objection appears to be unnecessarily technical and aimed more at delaying proceedings than addressing any substantive procedural concern. Nonetheless, in the interest of cooperation and clarity, the Plaintiff is willing to amend the question slightly to satisfy opposing counsel’s concerns:

“At any point, were you made aware by the government, through any official channels, of why the jail sentence imposed on you was so long, given that Resisting Arrest (the charge in question) is a summary offense punishable only by a $100 fine and no jail time?”

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 16 June 2025.

 

[Patototongo1]

Objection​

Ambiguous

Question here is unclear.

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the question, “Could you describe to the court your experience during your time in Revcatraz?” is neither unclear nor imprecise. It is a straightforward, open-ended question inviting the witness to share their personal experience during incarceration, something well within their knowledge and capacity to describe.

There is no ambiguity in asking someone to recount their own lived experience, and the objection appears unwarranted.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 16 June 2025.

 

[Patototongo1]

Your Honor,

It appears that Plaintiff’s counsel has, at best, been misled and, at worst, deliberately misinformed by opposing counsel regarding the existence of a so-called “five-question rule.” After careful review of the Court’s Rules and Procedures, as well as all related legal guides and information, we have found no mention of any rule that limits counsel to five questions per witness.

Despite this, the Defense has continued to invoke such a rule as though it were binding authority. We further note that it has come to this council's attention that End who as well stipulated on this rule, has personally exceeded five questions in previous proceedings, notably in End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31 without objection or judicial reprimand. This raises serious concerns about the selective or improper application of nonexistent rules in order to limit the Plaintiff’s ability to present their case.

Accordingly, before questioning may continue, we respectfully request that the Court ask the Defense to specify the legal basis for this alleged limitation. Should no such basis be provided, we ask that the Court issue a clarification confirming that no such rule exists, and that standard witness examination may proceed without arbitrary constraints.

Plaintiff’s counsel is committed to adhering to all valid procedures, but cannot continue effectively without clarity on this point. We appreciate the Court’s attention to this matter.

 

[ko531]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

As End has pointed out, the plaintiff is limited to 5 questions per witness.

Objection Overruled. The 5 question limit only applies to interrogations and not witness questioning.

Objection

Compound Questions

All the above questions contain multiple inquiries.

Objection

Call for Conclusion, Speculation

Plaintiff is seeking an opinion to strengthen their version of events.

Objection

Incompetent

As far as I'm aware, DocTheory is not a practicing lawyer, and thus is not qualified to comment on "what the law stipulates".

Objection

Ambiguous

Question here is unclear.

OBJECTION COMPOUND QUESTION
Sustained, please rephrase the question

OBJECTION CALLS FOR CONCLUSION, SPECULATION
Overruled. The question is not asking for an opinion but the typical response for a set of circumstances.

OBJECTION INCOMPETENT
Sustained, please rephrase the question

OBJECTION AMBIGUOUS
Overruled. The question, even though it is open ended, is clear about what is being asked

 

[Patototongo1]

Taking into consideration the non-existence of a "5 question rule", the plaintiff respectfully amends its question list as follows, in accordance with the sustained objections.

@End

1. Are you familiar with the procedures used to jail and unjail players on the server?
2. Does the Staff Team utilize any plugins or automated tools to administer jail sentences?
3. How do these plug-ins work?
4. To your knowledge, are these tools capable of misapplying or extending sentences beyond statutory limits?
5. Are logs or records maintained of jail sentences and the time served by players?
6. Does the Staff Team play any role in monitoring the length of time a player remains jailed?
7. In a typical case, if a player is jailed erroneously or beyond the legal sentence, what is the standard procedure for review or correction?
8. Was DocTheory’s sentence or jail duration ever brought to your or the staff team's attention prior to March 25th?
9. If DocTheory’s sentence or jail duration ever brought to your or the staff team's attention prior to March 25th, who was it by?
10. Who authorized or processed DocTheory’s release from jail on March 25th?
11. Was any internal discussion or investigation held regarding the length of DocTheory’s sentence?
12. If such discussions did exist, could you share with the court what those discussions looked like?
13. To your knowledge, was the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) involved in initiating DocTheory’s jail sentence?
14. Is Exhibit D-011 accurate in stating that only the DHS Secretary can request that a player be unjailed?
15. Can you confirm whether a formal unjail request was ever received from the DHS Secretary in relation to DocTheory?
16. If a formal unjail request was ever received from the DHS Secretary in relation to DocTheory, could you share such request to the court?
17. If such a request was never made by the DHS Secretary, on what authority or instruction was DocTheory released?
18. To your knowledge, was the absence of a request from the DHS Secretary the reason DocTheory remained jailed for the duration that he did?
19. Would the Staff Team have released DocTheory earlier if a request from the DHS Secretary had been submitted sooner?

We thank you for your time and cooperation, and respectfully reserve the right to pose follow-up questions at the discretion of the Court.

 

[Patototongo1]

Taking into consideration the non-existence of a "5 question rule", the plaintiff respectfully amends its question list as follows, in accordance with the sustained objections.

@DocsTheory

1. Can you confirm the date you were first sentenced and the charge that led to your incarceration?
2. Prior to this incident, did you have any criminal record or jail time on your account?
3. Could you give us a description of the events that took place leading to your incasaration?
4. At any point, were you made aware by the government, through any official channels, of why the jail sentence imposed on you was so long, given that Resisting Arrest (the charge in question) is a summary offense punishable only by a $100 fine and no jail time?
5. Could you describe to the court your experience during your time in Revcatraz?
6. Were there any opportunities for meaningful in-game interaction or community participation while incarcerated?
7. How did your time in jail affect your ability to enjoy Democracy Craft or participate in its community events and economy?
8. Did you or anyone on your behalf reach out to government officials or departments to challenge or inquire about your sentencing?
9. What responses, if any, did you receive from the Commonwealth or its officials?
10. Did you ever receive any formal communication from the Department of Homeland Security regarding an effort to investigate or resolve your case?
11. Can you walk us through how you calculated the total amount of time you served in jail?
12. Have you seen any evidence presented by the Defense that clearly disproves your claim about how much time you served?
13. Were you ever informed why your sentence was reduced or when you would be released?
14. Based on your role in-game, can you explain how your incarceration impacted your earnings and opportunities?
15. How much income did you estimate losing during your sentence?
16. Can you walk us through how you calculated your estimated loss of income during your sentence?
17. Do you feel your constitutional right to liberty and due process was upheld during this process?
18. Do you believe the government fulfilled its duty of care in addressing your situation?

We thank you for your time and cooperation, and respectfully reserve the right to pose follow-up questions at the discretion of the Court.

 

[Staff Team]

I just want to expectation manage you here that Staff are able to be called to clarify specific staff events and plugin related questions. I would consider the amount of questions being posed to the staff team here excessive, but, I will answer them. Any further questions need to be more to the point than this or they won't be answered. General questions about how a very public plugin works is not appropriate for staff questioning, and in most cases, the best people to ask are the ones who use it.

Are you familiar with the procedures used to jail and unjail players on the server?
Yes

Does the Staff Team utilize any plugins or automated tools to administer jail sentences?
Yes, HomelandSecurity

How do these plug-ins work?
This is too broad and how the plugin works is very public. You are best asking the DHS.

To your knowledge, are these tools capable of misapplying or extending sentences beyond statutory limits?
Yes.

Are logs or records maintained of jail sentences and the time served by players?
No

Does the Staff Team play any role in monitoring the length of time a player remains jailed?
No

In a typical case, if a player is jailed erroneously or beyond the legal sentence, what is the standard procedure for review or correction?
There is no standard procedure. All instances are dealt with on a case by case basis and staff discretion is applied.

Was DocTheory’s sentence or jail duration ever brought to your or the staff team's attention prior to March 25th?
Unknown

If DocTheory’s sentence or jail duration ever brought to your or the staff team's attention prior to March 25th, who was it by?
Unknown

Who authorized or processed DocTheory’s release from jail on March 25th?
Unknown

Was any internal discussion or investigation held regarding the length of DocTheory’s sentence?
No

If such discussions did exist, could you share with the court what those discussions looked like?
N/A

To your knowledge, was the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) involved in initiating DocTheory’s jail sentence?
Unknown

Is Exhibit D-011 accurate in stating that only the DHS Secretary can request that a player be unjailed?
As Birb, a Senior Administrator, has provided, the DHS Sec is the authority we would look to for unjailing someone early. In extraordinary circumstances where a glitch is apparent we may act without this authority - however, I find it unlikely that this occurred.

Can you confirm whether a formal unjail request was ever received from the DHS Secretary in relation to DocTheory?
Unknown

If a formal unjail request was ever received from the DHS Secretary in relation to DocTheory, could you share such request to the court?
Unknown

If such a request was never made by the DHS Secretary, on what authority or instruction was DocTheory released?
Unknown

To your knowledge, was the absence of a request from the DHS Secretary the reason DocTheory remained jailed for the duration that he did?
Unknown

Would the Staff Team have released DocTheory earlier if a request from the DHS Secretary had been submitted sooner?
Yes

If you can provide ticket numbers and or dates we can provide a lot more info in your questioning.

 

[ko531]

Taking into consideration the non-existence of a "5 question rule", the plaintiff respectfully amends its question list as follows, in accordance with the sustained objections.

@DocsTheory

1. Can you confirm the date you were first sentenced and the charge that led to your incarceration?
2. Prior to this incident, did you have any criminal record or jail time on your account?
3. Could you give us a description of the events that took place leading to your incasaration?
4. At any point, were you made aware by the government, through any official channels, of why the jail sentence imposed on you was so long, given that Resisting Arrest (the charge in question) is a summary offense punishable only by a $100 fine and no jail time?
5. Could you describe to the court your experience during your time in Revcatraz?
6. Were there any opportunities for meaningful in-game interaction or community participation while incarcerated?
7. How did your time in jail affect your ability to enjoy Democracy Craft or participate in its community events and economy?
8. Did you or anyone on your behalf reach out to government officials or departments to challenge or inquire about your sentencing?
9. What responses, if any, did you receive from the Commonwealth or its officials?
10. Did you ever receive any formal communication from the Department of Homeland Security regarding an effort to investigate or resolve your case?
11. Can you walk us through how you calculated the total amount of time you served in jail?
12. Have you seen any evidence presented by the Defense that clearly disproves your claim about how much time you served?
13. Were you ever informed why your sentence was reduced or when you would be released?
14. Based on your role in-game, can you explain how your incarceration impacted your earnings and opportunities?
15. How much income did you estimate losing during your sentence?
16. Can you walk us through how you calculated your estimated loss of income during your sentence?
17. Do you feel your constitutional right to liberty and due process was upheld during this process?
18. Do you believe the government fulfilled its duty of care in addressing your situation?

We thank you for your time and cooperation, and respectfully reserve the right to pose follow-up questions at the discretion of the Court.

@DocsTheory You have 24 hours to respond to these questions or you will be held in contempt.

 

[DocsTheory]

1. I was arrested sometime in December last year
2. In line with Const. 32(5), I choose to invoke the fifth charter right.
3 . I was cuffed because I killed a guy in the Christmas event, defending myself when he hit me, and disconnected because my wifi went down, and when I logged back in, I was in jail for 168 hours or 7 irl days
4. I was not helped by anyone on why it was so long, and no one decided to even think about the length.
5. I slaved away in the mines and suffered for 8 hours every day for a week. I starved to death more times than I could count. I served an unjust sentence that shouldn't be given to anyone for any reason.
6. None. I was locked away, unable to do anything.
7. I was unable to enjoy my time in DC. I couldn't attend any events, I couldn't see anyone of my good friends. It was overall a bad time in there.
8. Yes me my lawyers and I did reach out to the DHS
9. no
10.no I wasn’t contacted once
11. Well, I sent daily updates to my lawyers, every day telling them my time served
12. no lmao
13.no
14. I am a doctor and could not cure my patients, losing me thousands, and during the time in jail, I was running and lost by one vote. If I were not in jail, I would have been representing the people of Redmont
15. roughly 5000 DC, as that's how much I made curing during the month I was released maybe more, as I am a regular poker player and made 150k that same month after I was released.
16. I normally cured 10 patients every hour, so that's around 1000 DC
17. Yes
18. No, absolutely not, the government waited until I served more than half of my sentence after I had slaved away for so long and was already finishing my sentence.

 

[ko531]

Does the plaintiff have any follow up questions?

 

[AmityBlamity]

3 . I was cuffed because I killed a guy in the Christmas event, defending myself when he hit me, and disconnected because my wifi went down, and when I logged back in, I was in jail for 168 hours or 7 irl days

Objection

Nothing Pending

Plaintiff was asked to describe the events leading to his incarceration. The time he was jailed for is irrelevant here.

5. I slaved away in the mines and suffered for 8 hours every day for a week. I starved to death more times than I could count. I served an unjust sentence that shouldn't be given to anyone for any reason.

18. No, absolutely not, the government waited until I served more than half of my sentence after I had slaved away for so long and was already finishing my sentence.

Objection

Perjury

Your Honor, in our opening statement, we demonstrated through D-011, D-012, and P-003 that the absolute maximum time the plaintiff could have served is 50.74 hours (rounded up). An estimate we established as being generous, as P-001 showcased the plaintiff having escaped from prison on at least one occasion. We also established between the 15th and 25th of March, plaintiff only played for 26 minutes.

8 hours multiplied by 7 days is 56 hours. Plaintiff expects this court to believe, in the face of overwhelmingly contradictory evidence, that he served 56 hours over a 50 hour period. Plaintiff is lying to this court, and should face a perjury charge for his disgraceful behavior.

9. no
10.no I wasn’t contacted once

Objection

Perjury

Your Honor, the plaintiff's counsel provided the very evidence that contradicts this claim. P-008, P-009, and P-010 clearly show communication between the Commonwealth (specifically, the DHS), and the plaintiff's lawyer. He WAS contacted. He should face a perjury charge for his continuous disregard of the truth.

12. no lmao

Objection

Incompetent

Your Honor, as we previously established, DocTheory is not qualified to comment on legal matters. His opinion on whether or not evidence "clearly disproves" his claim is irrelevant. I move to strike.

14. I am a doctor and could not cure my patients, losing me thousands, and during the time in jail, I was running and lost by one vote. If I were not in jail, I would have been representing the people of Redmont

Objection

Assumes facts not in evidence, Nothing Pending

Plaintiff's counsel has provided zero evidence to suggest DocTheory's incarceration had any impact on potential political ambitions. Furthermore, it had nothing to do with the question asked. I move to strike.

 

[AmityBlamity]

11. Well, I sent daily updates to my lawyers, every day telling them my time served

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The defense moves that the plaintiff turn over all of these so called "daily updates" so that we might be afforded a clearer picture of the time plaintiff supposedly served.

 

[Patototongo1]

Objection​

Nothing Pending

Plaintiff was asked to describe the events leading to his incarceration. The time he was jailed for is irrelevant here.

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff’s statement that “when I logged back in, I was in jail for 168 hours or 7 irl days” serves as a factual description of the immediate events following his disconnection, which is directly relevant to understanding the circumstances of his incarceration and directly relevant to the question asked. This does not qualify as nothing pending, defined in the Court Guide Objections as (emphasis mine):

When a witness continues discussing irrelevant matters after answering the question.

This does not apply in this context, here the Plaintiff is providing essential context tied directly to the claims at issue.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 27 June 2025.

 

[DocsTheory]

Apologies, your honor, while responding,I got confused between questions 9 and 10 and responded to question 10 twice. I did not mean to lie to the court, and I am amending my response to question 9 as follows:
My lawyer was told that I have no criminal record and that the jail time was most likely a mistake.

 

[Patototongo1]

Objection​

Perjury

Your Honor, the plaintiff's counsel provided the very evidence that contradicts this claim. P-008, P-009, and P-010 clearly show communication between the Commonwealth (specifically, the DHS), and the plaintiff's lawyer. He WAS contacted. He should face a perjury charge for his continuous disregard of the truth.

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION


Your Honor,

The objection of perjury is entirely unfounded. Exhibits P-008, P-009, and P-010 do not reasonably demonstrate that the Plaintiff received any formal communication from the Department of Homeland Security regarding an effort to investigate or resolve the improper sentencing at issue. The question was not wether there was communication but whether the plaintiff was made aware of an effort to investigate and resolve. The Plaintiff’s statement reflects this fact. The Plaintiff highly doubts that such effort was ever even conducted. No other formal communication was ever received by the Plaintiff, and to date, the Defense has produced no evidence—such as internal communications, investigation records, or reports—showing that any such effort was undertaken. The Plaintiff maintains that no such effort appears to have occurred, and urges the Defense to provide proof if it exists, rather than resorting to baseless accusations of perjury.

There is a clear and important difference between being contacted and contacting.

When an individual contacts an organization, they are the party initiating communication, seeking a response, action, or information.
In contrast, being contacted means that the organization itself has taken the initiative to reach out to the individual. This implies that the organization recognized the matter as requiring attention and acted to engage with the individual, whether to provide information, assistance, or resolution.

In the context of this case, the Plaintiff made efforts to contact the Department of Homeland Security. However, at no point did the DHS take the initiative to contact the Plaintiff with formal communication regarding any investigation or resolution of the improper sentencing (after being informed of the such). This distinction matters because it demonstrates whether the department fulfilled its duty to address the issue proactively, and disproves the defense's accusation of perjury, yes there was communication, but as the plaintiff stated when saying "I wasn’t contacted once" he contacted the DHS, he wasn't contacted by the DHS.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 27 June 2025.

 

[Patototongo1]

Perjury

Your Honor, in our opening statement, we demonstrated through D-011, D-012, and P-003 that the absolute maximum time the plaintiff could have served is 50.74 hours (rounded up). An estimate we established as being generous, as P-001 showcased the plaintiff having escaped from prison on at least one occasion. We also established between the 15th and 25th of March, plaintiff only played for 26 minutes.

8 hours multiplied by 7 days is 56 hours. Plaintiff expects this court to believe, in the face of overwhelmingly contradictory evidence, that he served 56 hours over a 50 hour period. Plaintiff is lying to this court, and should face a perjury charge for his disgraceful behavior.

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

The defense’s claim of perjury is entirely unfounded. The matter at hand concerns a disputed fact regarding the duration of time served by the plaintiff, a fact which this Court has not yet ruled on. Until the Court determines the truth of that fact, it is improper and premature to accuse the plaintiff of perjury. A disagreement over the facts is not, and should not be characterized as, an intentional falsehood.

Furthermore, an assertion that the defense's evidence is overwhelming or absolute enough to justify perjury does not withstand scrutiny. Their estimate relies on possibly incomplete and selective data that fails to account for numerous variables, such as potential gaps or errors in login records, or time spent in-game that was not properly logged due to technical limitations or inconsistencies in tracking systems, this is still an issue left to discuss and cannot possibly be considered perjury. The defense’s evidence is, at best, an estimate, not definitive proof.

When the plaintiff stated that he “slaved away in the mines and suffered for 8 hours every day for a week,” this was clearly not intended as a precise, rigid schedule. Rather, it was a common and reasonable expression describing the hardship and grueling nature of his time served. To suggest that this figurative description amounts to perjury because it does not mathematically align with the defense’s own contested estimate is simply unreasonable.

Finally, the plaintiff’s statement reflects an experience of variable time and effort, some days he may have mined for more than 8 hours, some days less. This does not represent an attempt to deceive the Court, but an honest account of hardship endured. The defense’s claim of perjury is baseless, and their argument on this point is, respectfully, without merit.


Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 27 June 2025.

 

[Patototongo1]

Objection​

Assumes facts not in evidence, Nothing Pending

Plaintiff's counsel has provided zero evidence to suggest DocTheory's incarceration had any impact on potential political ambitions. Furthermore, it had nothing to do with the question asked. I move to strike.

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

This objection lacks simple merit. The plaintiff was directly answering a question about how his incarceration impacted his earnings and opportunities based on his role in-game. His statement reflects his lived experience, including the clear, direct consequences of his unlawful incarceration on both his livelihood and his political prospects. It is not speculative to say that being jailed during an election interfered with his ability to campaign or represent himself as a candidate.

Moreover, the simple, undeniable fact that the plaintiff could not vote for himself because he was imprisoned—and ultimately lost the election by a single vote—serves as proof enough that the sentence materially interfered with his election. This is not assumption or speculation, but a matter of record and basic logic.

The plaintiff’s response directly relates to the question asked and provides relevant, factual context. It should stand, and we respectfully request that this objection be overruled.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 27 June 2025.

 

[Patototongo1]

Objection​

Incompetent

Your Honor, as we previously established, DocTheory is not qualified to comment on legal matters. His opinion on whether or not evidence "clearly disproves" his claim is irrelevant. I move to strike.

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION


Your Honor,

the plaintiff was not offering a legal opinion but simply responding based on his personal perception of the evidence presented so far. His view of whether the Defense’s evidence aligns with his lived experience is relevant to his testimony. We respectfully request that the objection be overruled.

 

[Patototongo1]

Motion​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The defense moves that the plaintiff turn over all of these so called "daily updates" so that we might be afforded a clearer picture of the time plaintiff supposedly served.

Your honor,

The plaintiff respectfully requests permission to respond to the defence’s motion to compel.

 

[ko531]

Your honor,

The plaintiff respectfully requests permission to respond to the defence’s motion to compel.

Granted

 

[Patototongo1]

Motion​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The defense moves that the plaintiff turn over all of these so called "daily updates" so that we might be afforded a clearer picture of the time plaintiff supposedly served.

Response

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL
Your Honor,

the plaintiff’s daily updates were submitted to and handled by previous counsel. As such, current counsel does not have access to these records, nor is it within our discretion to provide them.

Moreover, we strongly urge the Court to deny this motion, as granting it would raise significant ethical concerns and be a serious infringement of my client’s attorney-client privilege. The plaintiff also maintains that the evidence submitted thus far is substantial and sufficient to demonstrate the time served by my client without need of these records.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 28 June 2025.

 

[Patototongo1]

Does the plaintiff have any follow up questions?

Your honor,

No further questions to the Plaintiff @DocsTheory thank you.


@End
Respectfully, the questions are directed to the Staff Team collectively, as set out in the witness list and the writ of summons, not to End individually. Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully urges the Staff Team to confer among themselves before responding to any further questions, so as to avoid vague or non-useful answers such as “unknown”.

• Yes or no, did the Secretary of Homeland Security ever issue an official request for the release of DocTheory (to the staff team) prior to March 25th?
• If so, could you provide a screenshot or record of this request for the Court?
• Was DocTheory’s release on March 25th prompted by any specific request or event, or was it unprompted?
• If no official request was made and no internal discussions occurred regarding DocTheory’s sentence, what led the Staff Team to release him on that specific date?

Motion​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves to amend the witness list, appending the following individual:

Intercepticon — Former Head of the Department of Homeland Security and the government official who handled the Plaintiff’s ticket regarding the sentencing in question.

We acknowledge that this request is unorthodox due to its timing. However, Plaintiff’s counsel has only recently assumed responsibility for the case and, until now, has not had the opportunity to fully review and amend the witness list.

Intercepticon’s testimony is materially relevant to the core issues in dispute, including the government’s awareness of and response to the Plaintiff’s improper incarceration. Their direct involvement in the matter makes their inclusion essential to the fair and complete presentation of evidence.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion in the interest of justice.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 13 June 2025.

Finally, Your Honor, We respectfully request that the Court consider and rule on our motion to amend, and promptly issue a writ of summons to the individual Intercepticon. This individual served as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security at the time of the events in question and was the official who handled my client’s ticket when the matter was first brought to DHS. Given their direct involvement, we submit that Intercepticon’s testimony is vital to ensure a full and fair determination of the facts in this case.

 

[AmityBlamity]

@End
Respectfully, the questions are directed to the Staff Team collectively, as set out in the witness list and the writ of summons, not to End individually. Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully urges the Staff Team to confer among themselves before responding to any further questions, so as to avoid vague or non-useful answers such as “unknown”.

• Yes or no, did the Secretary of Homeland Security ever issue an official request for the release of DocTheory (to the staff team) prior to March 25th?
• If so, could you provide a screenshot or record of this request for the Court?
• Was DocTheory’s release on March 25th prompted by any specific request or event, or was it unprompted?
• If no official request was made and no internal discussions occurred regarding DocTheory’s sentence, what led the Staff Team to release him on that specific date?

Objection

Badgering, Asked and Answered

Your Honor, plaintiff's counsel treatment of the Staff Team is borderline disrespectful. They have taken the time out of their busy day to come here and answer questions to the best of the ability, and how does plaintiff's counsel respond? By complaining that they're not getting the answers they wanted, and wasting the Court's time by asking the exact same questions again. This isn't the first time they've pestered the Staff Team with irrelevant questions. Every one of the above questions has been asked and answered by End, and I urge the Court to strike them.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Finally, Your Honor, We respectfully request that the Court consider and rule on our motion to amend, and promptly issue a writ of summons to the individual Intercepticon. This individual served as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security at the time of the events in question and was the official who handled my client’s ticket when the matter was first brought to DHS. Given their direct involvement, we submit that Intercepticon’s testimony is vital to ensure a full and fair determination of the facts in this case.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

The time to call witnesses has come and gone. Plaintiff's counsel had plenty of time to call Interception as a witness, and chose not to.

 

[Patototongo1]

Objection

Badgering, Asked and Answered

Your Honor, plaintiff's counsel treatment of the Staff Team is borderline disrespectful. They have taken the time out of their busy day to come here and answer questions to the best of the ability, and how does plaintiff's counsel respond? By complaining that they're not getting the answers they wanted, and wasting the Court's time by asking the exact same questions again. This isn't the first time they've pestered the Staff Team with irrelevant questions. Every one of the above questions has been asked and answered by End, and I urge the Court to strike them.

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff’s counsel respectfully submits that this objection is clearly without merit. The questions at issue are plainly not identical to those previously asked. Earlier inquiries focused on general knowledge or awareness regarding jail procedures and the involvement of the DHS Secretary. In contrast, the current questions are targeted at clarifying what specifically prompted the Plaintiff’s release and whether formal requests or authorities were involved. These are distinct points of fact that have not been sufficiently addressed, as the Staff Team’s prior answers of “unknown” constitute an unreasonably vague (and perhaps even purposefully vague) response to questions that the Staff should clearly have an answer to, such as whether a request from the Secretary of the DHS was made. The existence of such a request would leave a record if it existed and should not reasonably be left as “unknown.” Seeking clarification in this context is both reasonable and necessary.

Aditionaly, this line of questioning does not constitute badgering, defined in the Court Guide Objections as:

Occurs when counsel is antagonizing the witness, either by asking questions without allowing answers or by mocking the witness.

In this instance, Plaintiff’s counsel has done neither. The implication that counsel’s respectful and necessary clarifying questions amount to badgering is, quite frankly, absurd.

Moreover, the objection on the grounds of Asked and Answered is misguided, Asked and Answered is defined in the Court Guide Objections as (emphasis mine):

Happens when a witness has already answered a question multiple times, and the same question is asked again, perhaps with slight variations.

Here, the witness has provided an answer only once, not multiple times, and that answer fell short of what would reasonably be expected given the simplicity of the question. The question concerns a fact that should clearly be ascertainable, whether a formal request from the DHS Secretary existed, something that would leave a record and should not be left in uncertainty.

Finally, it is common and indeed sound practice, in real-life legal proceedings, to ask context-building or establishing questions to ensure clarity and precision in the testimony. For the Defense to characterize such questions as “irrelevant” misrepresents their legitimate purpose and undermines a fair and thorough fact-finding process. We respectfully ask the Court to overrule this objection and allow questioning to proceed.

 

[Patototongo1]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

The time to call witnesses has come and gone. Plaintiff's counsel had plenty of time to call Interception as a witness, and chose not to.

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff notes that this objection overlooks a key fact: we have already addressed this matter in the Motion to Amend that is being discussed. In said motion, we clearly explained that current counsel (at the time) had only recently assumed responsibility for the case and, as a result, did not have the opportunity to fully review and amend the witness list before questioning began. This is not a matter of neglect or delay, it is a consequence of the change in representation, a fact opposing counsel is well aware of or reasonably should be (specially when it was mentioned in the very motion they are objecting to).

Furthermore, Intercepticon is not just any witness, this individual was the Head of the Department of Homeland Security at the relevant time and personally handled the Plaintiff’s ticket concerning his improper incarceration. Their testimony is vital to a fair and complete determination of the facts. The Defense’s objection to calling such a crucial witness raises a serious concern that sustaining it could block the introduction of testimony capable of fundamentally impacting the case, thereby undermining full transparency and obstructing the proper administration of justice

We respectfully ask the Court to consider and rule on our pending motion rather than entertain redundant objections.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff’s counsel respectfully submits that this objection is clearly without merit. The questions at issue are plainly not identical to those previously asked. Earlier inquiries focused on general knowledge or awareness regarding jail procedures and the involvement of the DHS Secretary. In contrast, the current questions are targeted at clarifying what specifically prompted the Plaintiff’s release and whether formal requests or authorities were involved. These are distinct points of fact that have not been sufficiently addressed, as the Staff Team’s prior answers of “unknown” constitute an unreasonably vague (and perhaps even purposefully vague) response to questions that the Staff should clearly have an answer to, such as whether a request from the Secretary of the DHS was made. The existence of such a request would leave a record if it existed and should not reasonably be left as “unknown.” Seeking clarification in this context is both reasonable and necessary.

Aditionaly, this line of questioning does not constitute badgering, defined in the Court Guide Objections as:


In this instance, Plaintiff’s counsel has done neither. The implication that counsel’s respectful and necessary clarifying questions amount to badgering is, quite frankly, absurd.

Moreover, the objection on the grounds of Asked and Answered is misguided, Asked and Answered is defined in the Court Guide Objections as (emphasis mine):


Here, the witness has provided an answer only once, not multiple times, and that answer fell short of what would reasonably be expected given the simplicity of the question. The question concerns a fact that should clearly be ascertainable, whether a formal request from the DHS Secretary existed, something that would leave a record and should not be left in uncertainty.

Finally, it is common and indeed sound practice, in real-life legal proceedings, to ask context-building or establishing questions to ensure clarity and precision in the testimony. For the Defense to characterize such questions as “irrelevant” misrepresents their legitimate purpose and undermines a fair and thorough fact-finding process. We respectfully ask the Court to overrule this objection and allow questioning to proceed.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Your Honor, plaintiff's counsel edited their response AFTER posting it, adding signifcant material to their response, without informing this court. Per precedent from Galavance v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 66, it is the duty of counsel of either side to inform the court when edits are to be made. I move to strike the plaintiff's response.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff’s counsel respectfully submits that this objection is clearly without merit. The questions at issue are plainly not identical to those previously asked. Earlier inquiries focused on general knowledge or awareness regarding jail procedures and the involvement of the DHS Secretary. In contrast, the current questions are targeted at clarifying what specifically prompted the Plaintiff’s release and whether formal requests or authorities were involved. These are distinct points of fact that have not been sufficiently addressed, as the Staff Team’s prior answers of “unknown” constitute an unreasonably vague (and perhaps even purposefully vague) response to questions that the Staff should clearly have an answer to, such as whether a request from the Secretary of the DHS was made. The existence of such a request would leave a record if it existed and should not reasonably be left as “unknown.” Seeking clarification in this context is both reasonable and necessary.

Aditionaly, this line of questioning does not constitute badgering, defined in the Court Guide Objections as:


In this instance, Plaintiff’s counsel has done neither. The implication that counsel’s respectful and necessary clarifying questions amount to badgering is, quite frankly, absurd.

Moreover, the objection on the grounds of Asked and Answered is misguided, Asked and Answered is defined in the Court Guide Objections as (emphasis mine):


Here, the witness has provided an answer only once, not multiple times, and that answer fell short of what would reasonably be expected given the simplicity of the question. The question concerns a fact that should clearly be ascertainable, whether a formal request from the DHS Secretary existed, something that would leave a record and should not be left in uncertainty.

Finally, it is common and indeed sound practice, in real-life legal proceedings, to ask context-building or establishing questions to ensure clarity and precision in the testimony. For the Defense to characterize such questions as “irrelevant” misrepresents their legitimate purpose and undermines a fair and thorough fact-finding process. We respectfully ask the Court to overrule this objection and allow questioning to proceed.

Objection

Arguing with the Witness
Your Honor, I don't typically like to Object to responses, but this is getting ridiculous. In a response to an Objection where I accused plaintiff's counsel of badgering the witness, their defense was to attack the witness once again. Please note the following passage (emphasis mine):

These are distinct points of fact that have not been sufficiently addressed, as the Staff Team’s prior answers of “unknown” constitute an unreasonably vague (and perhaps even purposefully vague) response to questions that the Staff should clearly have an answer to, such as whether a request from the Secretary of the DHS was made.

I will remind the court that plaintiff's counsel was the one who asked for the Staff Team to serve as a witness. Rather than treat them respectfully, they have seen fit to waste their time, repeat previously answered questions, and now have the gall to claim that the Staff Team is deliberately hiding evidence. If they actually believe this to be true, they should file a motion to have the witness impeached (as per Guide - Objections). But they've instead chosen to try and smear the witness after their testimony didn't support their version of the facts.

This behavior is disgraceful and makes a mockery of the court. I ask that the response be struck, and that plaintiff's counsel face sanctions for their inexcusable behavior.

 

[Patototongo1]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Your Honor, plaintiff's counsel edited their response AFTER posting it, adding signifcant material to their response, without informing this court. Per precedent from Galavance v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 66, it is the duty of counsel of either side to inform the court when edits are to be made. I move to strike the plaintiff's response.

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

the Plaintiff respectfully submits that the edits in question were made immediately after the original response was filed, solely for the purpose of clarity and completeness. This was not an attempt to conceal, mislead, or alter the course of proceedings. The Defense’s objection here is disproportionate and increasingly absurd and pedantic, as it seeks to elevate a minor procedural formality over substance. We urge the Court to dismiss this objection so that the matter at hand may proceed without further unnecessary distraction.

 

[Patototongo1]

Objection​

Arguing with the Witness
Your Honor, I don't typically like to Object to responses, but this is getting ridiculous. In a response to an Objection where I accused plaintiff's counsel of badgering the witness, their defense was to attack the witness once again. Please note the following passage (emphasis mine):


I will remind the court that plaintiff's counsel was the one who asked for the Staff Team to serve as a witness. Rather than treat them respectfully, they have seen fit to waste their time, repeat previously answered questions, and now have the gall to claim that the Staff Team is deliberately hiding evidence. If they actually believe this to be true, they should file a motion to have the witness impeached (as per Guide - Objections). But they've instead chosen to try and smear the witness after their testimony didn't support their version of the facts.

This behavior is disgraceful and makes a mockery of the court. I ask that the response be struck, and that plaintiff's counsel face sanctions for their inexcusable behavior.

Response

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

the Plaintiff respectfully submits that this objection is entirely without merit.

At no point has counsel been hostile toward the Staff Team or engaged in improper argument with their testimony. The statement in question simply highlighted the insufficiency of certain answers in resolving critical factual issues, a legitimate concern in the pursuit of clarity and justice. As well, it is unreasonable to suggest that counsel is arguing with testimony when the answer at issue was simply “unknown.” There is literally nothing to argue against, no substantive testimony was provided on the point, only a non-answer that left critical facts unresolved, How could counsel possibly argue against nothing? The suggestion is, quite frankly, absurd.

Moreover, the witness' remarks do not constitute an accusation of misconduct warranting a motion to impeach; they constitute a legitimate concern about the adequacy of the information provided, which is well within the bounds of advocacy. We regret that opposing counsel seeks to reframe reasonable and necessary clarifications as personal attacks.

It is also strikingly ironic for opposing counsel to claim, “I don’t typically like to object to responses,” while filing two objections to responses in immediate succession, both of which lack substantive merit. The plaintiff would also like to note that opposing council has proceeded to file fourteen objections during the questioning phase alone. This volume of objections, many of which are baseless or pedantic, has become unreasonable and is obstructing the efficient administration of these proceedings. The Plaintiff respectfully urges the Court to consider instructing Defense counsel to exercise greater restraint, as this pattern of excessive objection risks turning the process into a spectacle rather than a serious trial.

We respectfully ask that this objection be overruled so that the matter may proceed without further unnecessary delay.

 

[Staff Team]

Your honor,

No further questions to the Plaintiff @DocsTheory thank you.


@End
Respectfully, the questions are directed to the Staff Team collectively, as set out in the witness list and the writ of summons, not to End individually. Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully urges the Staff Team to confer among themselves before responding to any further questions, so as to avoid vague or non-useful answers such as “unknown”.

• Yes or no, did the Secretary of Homeland Security ever issue an official request for the release of DocTheory (to the staff team) prior to March 25th?
• If so, could you provide a screenshot or record of this request for the Court?
• Was DocTheory’s release on March 25th prompted by any specific request or event, or was it unprompted?
• If no official request was made and no internal discussions occurred regarding DocTheory’s sentence, what led the Staff Team to release him on that specific date?

Finally, Your Honor, We respectfully request that the Court consider and rule on our motion to amend, and promptly issue a writ of summons to the individual Intercepticon. This individual served as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security at the time of the events in question and was the official who handled my client’s ticket when the matter was first brought to DHS. Given their direct involvement, we submit that Intercepticon’s testimony is vital to ensure a full and fair determination of the facts in this case.

Respectfully, the questions were raised to the whole staff team. I'd appreciate if you didn't lecture me on how I need to facilitate your request or that our lack of records on this very vague request is unsatisfactory for you.

The reality is we have had staff members leave. We have 22,000 logged discord tickets. We have 10,000s of unlogged in-game tickets. The server produces multiple logs per day and you need to provide more information about who when where and why for us to go looking for you in a warrant, not a testimony.

The staff team is not here for legal roleplay and we have done our best to answer your very vague questions.

When you do your due diligence we will do ours.

Answer to all of your above questions is unknown.

The Staff Team.

 

[Staff Team]

Please refer to the staff-courts guide @ko531 and do not summon staff for questions which should be ascertained through the warrant process.

Exercising staff privilege to recuse ourselves from further questions.

 

[ko531]

Objection

Nothing Pending

Plaintiff was asked to describe the events leading to his incarceration. The time he was jailed for is irrelevant here.

Objection

Perjury

Your Honor, in our opening statement, we demonstrated through D-011, D-012, and P-003 that the absolute maximum time the plaintiff could have served is 50.74 hours (rounded up). An estimate we established as being generous, as P-001 showcased the plaintiff having escaped from prison on at least one occasion. We also established between the 15th and 25th of March, plaintiff only played for 26 minutes.

8 hours multiplied by 7 days is 56 hours. Plaintiff expects this court to believe, in the face of overwhelmingly contradictory evidence, that he served 56 hours over a 50 hour period. Plaintiff is lying to this court, and should face a perjury charge for his disgraceful behavior.

Objection

Perjury

Your Honor, the plaintiff's counsel provided the very evidence that contradicts this claim. P-008, P-009, and P-010 clearly show communication between the Commonwealth (specifically, the DHS), and the plaintiff's lawyer. He WAS contacted. He should face a perjury charge for his continuous disregard of the truth.

Objection

Incompetent

Your Honor, as we previously established, DocTheory is not qualified to comment on legal matters. His opinion on whether or not evidence "clearly disproves" his claim is irrelevant. I move to strike.

Objection

Assumes facts not in evidence, Nothing Pending

Plaintiff's counsel has provided zero evidence to suggest DocTheory's incarceration had any impact on potential political ambitions. Furthermore, it had nothing to do with the question asked. I move to strike.

Objection - Nothing Pending
Sustained. The comment is struck

Objection - Perjury
Sustained in part, the Evidence may not show how long the plaintiff worked in the mine but it does show that more then half of the sentence was actually skipped and not served. Even though the fact of how much time is in dispute, that does not mean clear evidence can be contradicted and false testimony may be given. Answer to question 18 will be struck but the plaintiff will not be charged with perjury.

Objection - Perjury
Overruled, The witness amended their answer to question 9 and their answer to question 10 isn't technically untrue.

Objection - Incompetent
Sustained, The answer will be struck

Objection - Assumes facts not in evidences, Nothing Pending
Sustained, The second part of the answer will be struck

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The defense moves that the plaintiff turn over all of these so called "daily updates" so that we might be afforded a clearer picture of the time plaintiff supposedly served.

Denied. Communications between lawyers and their clients are protected by attorney-client privellege

Objection

Badgering, Asked and Answered

Your Honor, plaintiff's counsel treatment of the Staff Team is borderline disrespectful. They have taken the time out of their busy day to come here and answer questions to the best of the ability, and how does plaintiff's counsel respond? By complaining that they're not getting the answers they wanted, and wasting the Court's time by asking the exact same questions again. This isn't the first time they've pestered the Staff Team with irrelevant questions. Every one of the above questions has been asked and answered by End, and I urge the Court to strike them.

Sustained. Staff is here out of their own good will and these questions has been asked and answered already. All questions will be struck

Objection

Breach of Procedure

The time to call witnesses has come and gone. Plaintiff's counsel had plenty of time to call Interception as a witness, and chose not to.

Sustained. No witnesses will be called this late into a trial when witness questioning is almost done.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Your Honor, plaintiff's counsel edited their response AFTER posting it, adding signifcant material to their response, without informing this court. Per precedent from Galavance v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 66, it is the duty of counsel of either side to inform the court when edits are to be made. I move to strike the plaintiff's response.

Overruled. Doesn't look like anything of substance was change but this will be a warning to the plaintiff's counsel to not do this again and to inform the court prior to editing. You will not get a favorable ruling like this next time.

Objection

Arguing with the Witness
Your Honor, I don't typically like to Object to responses, but this is getting ridiculous. In a response to an Objection where I accused plaintiff's counsel of badgering the witness, their defense was to attack the witness once again. Please note the following passage (emphasis mine):



I will remind the court that plaintiff's counsel was the one who asked for the Staff Team to serve as a witness. Rather than treat them respectfully, they have seen fit to waste their time, repeat previously answered questions, and now have the gall to claim that the Staff Team is deliberately hiding evidence. If they actually believe this to be true, they should file a motion to have the witness impeached (as per Guide - Objections). But they've instead chosen to try and smear the witness after their testimony didn't support their version of the facts.

This behavior is disgraceful and makes a mockery of the court. I ask that the response be struck, and that plaintiff's counsel face sanctions for their inexcusable behavior.

Sustained. Staff is not a normal witness and must be treated with the upmost respect. The comment will be struck but no sanctions will be held against the plaintiff's counsel. Again, do not make this same mistake again.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honor, as plaintiff's counsel has said they have no further questions for plaintiff, and as the Staff Team has recused themselves, may we question the plaintiff?

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, as plaintiff's counsel has said they have no further questions for plaintiff, and as the Staff Team has recused themselves, may we question the plaintiff?

The defense has 24 hours to cross examine the witnesses and ask their questions